File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Conference Paper: The Courts, Public Opinion, and the Constitutional Protection of Same-Sex Couple Rights in Hong Kong
Title | The Courts, Public Opinion, and the Constitutional Protection of Same-Sex Couple Rights in Hong Kong |
---|---|
Authors | |
Issue Date | 2018 |
Citation | International Conference on Gender, Sexuality and Justice: Resilience in Uncertain Times, Hong Kong, 7-8 December 2018 How to Cite? |
Abstract | In Leung Chun Kwong v Secretary for the Civil Service and Another (Leung), the Hong Kong Court of Appeal relied partly on public opinion data when upholding the constitutionality of the Civil Service’s denial of spousal benefits to same-sex couples. In doing so, the Court applied a questionable methodology developed in an earlier, similar decision.1 It reasoned that certain rights and benefits are “core “and “unique to marriage” and, as such, policies supporting these rights could be “ring-fenced” and shielded from judicial scrutiny. When establishing which rights and benefits fall within this category, the Court paid particular attention to Hong Kong’s social context, citing public opinion data about marriage as evidence of lack of societal consensus. This paper queries the relevance of public opinion when courts adjudicate human rights cases generally and when they evaluate justifications for distinctions on the grounds of sexual orientation in particular. To be sure, public opinion data can helpfully contribute to important policy discussions in this area. For example, surveys that measure views about human rights over time can highlight any lack of awareness and need for more effective rights
education strategies. The paper contends, however, that such data should not be used to support the exclusion of minorities, such as LGBTI people, from access to rights on the basis of equality. The paper will also reflect on the dangers of courts’ potential misuse of public opinion data with reference to recent surveys conducted by the University of Hong Kong and others. |
Description | Organizers: Gender Research Centre, CUHK, Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) / Panel B1: Equality in Relationship Rights: Lessons and Outlook from Recent Court Cases on LGBT+ Rights in Hong Kong |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/270131 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Loper, KA | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-05-20T05:10:11Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-05-20T05:10:11Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | International Conference on Gender, Sexuality and Justice: Resilience in Uncertain Times, Hong Kong, 7-8 December 2018 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/270131 | - |
dc.description | Organizers: Gender Research Centre, CUHK, Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies, The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) / Panel B1: Equality in Relationship Rights: Lessons and Outlook from Recent Court Cases on LGBT+ Rights in Hong Kong | - |
dc.description.abstract | In Leung Chun Kwong v Secretary for the Civil Service and Another (Leung), the Hong Kong Court of Appeal relied partly on public opinion data when upholding the constitutionality of the Civil Service’s denial of spousal benefits to same-sex couples. In doing so, the Court applied a questionable methodology developed in an earlier, similar decision.1 It reasoned that certain rights and benefits are “core “and “unique to marriage” and, as such, policies supporting these rights could be “ring-fenced” and shielded from judicial scrutiny. When establishing which rights and benefits fall within this category, the Court paid particular attention to Hong Kong’s social context, citing public opinion data about marriage as evidence of lack of societal consensus. This paper queries the relevance of public opinion when courts adjudicate human rights cases generally and when they evaluate justifications for distinctions on the grounds of sexual orientation in particular. To be sure, public opinion data can helpfully contribute to important policy discussions in this area. For example, surveys that measure views about human rights over time can highlight any lack of awareness and need for more effective rights education strategies. The paper contends, however, that such data should not be used to support the exclusion of minorities, such as LGBTI people, from access to rights on the basis of equality. The paper will also reflect on the dangers of courts’ potential misuse of public opinion data with reference to recent surveys conducted by the University of Hong Kong and others. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | International Conference on Gender, Sexuality and Justice: Resilience in Uncertain Times | - |
dc.title | The Courts, Public Opinion, and the Constitutional Protection of Same-Sex Couple Rights in Hong Kong | - |
dc.type | Conference_Paper | - |
dc.identifier.email | Loper, KA: kloper@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Loper, KA=rp01267 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 297797 | - |